IN THIS, the first of several articles on workforce development, we bring assessment methods under the spotlight. Given the potential complexity of assessment, clear and thorough thinking about the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ is essential. This applies particularly in the case of foundation degrees, such as the one provided by the Fire Protection Association (FPA), in which experiences in the workplace are linked with the academic standards that need to be met.
Various definitions exist of assessment and the role it plays in teaching and learning. For instance, Allen1 states that ‘assessment involves the use of empirical data on learner learning to refine programmes and improve learner learning’. Erwin2 views assessment as ‘the systematic basis for making inferences about the learning and development of learners. It is the process of defining, selecting, designing, collecting, analysing, interpreting, and using information to increase learners’ learning and development.’
The assessment of work-based learning needs to take place from at least two perspectives – and each of these may have further dimensions. The two primary perspectives need to be firstly that of the learner, followed by that of the organisation. Ideally the needs of both should be high, although it should be recognised that this is not always the case and sometimes one will derive more benefit than the other.
In this context, we are reflecting upon whether the assessment of the learning intervention has worked and to what degree.
Woolf and Yorke3 offer more than 20 assessment methods that might be useful in foundation degrees, ranging from the traditional compilation of portfolios and critical incident analysis to the video-recording of workplace practices with analytical commentary or contributions to online blogs, forums, and so forth. The authors also outline 18 principles for the assessment of workplace learning, of which three will be considered here.
Consistent standards
The first two principles emphasise the need for clarity about what students are expected to achieve (aspirational standards) and what is being assessed. It is important to confirm that aspirational standards have consistency with national benchmarks and frameworks, and to be mindful of the need to integrate academic and workplace learning.
In 2004, the Foundation Degree Task Force Report to Ministers4 stated that the aspiration for foundation degrees was to ‘break the traditional pattern of demand’, which implies breaking entrenched patterns of supply and raising the status of vocationally oriented courses.
In order to raise the status of vocational qualifications, assessment standards must be maintained at the highest levels, so that the confidence of learners and employers in such qualifications can be maintained. Drawing the views of employers into the design of assessments, as well as syllabus design, also facilitates the description and delivery of what students will achieve.
The longevity of FPA/Confederation of Fire Protection Association Europe (CFPA-Europe) diplomas has allowed syllabuses and assessment methods to be refined over time through feedback from students and their employers, with whom close contact is maintained. The challenge for the FPA in creating the link with the University of Derby Corporate (UDC) and the development of the Foundation Degree – which includes the CFPA–Europe Diploma and the Advanced Diploma – has been in ensuring that academic standards are brought to bear on existing assessment methods. This has been achieved by working closely with the work-based learning team from UDC and putting the programmes concerned through the university validation process.
Choice of method
It is most important to select assessment methods that fit best with what students are required to demonstrate – for example, clearly an essay may not be the most appropriate vehicle for demonstrating achievement. In considering assessment in teacher education, Keesing-Styles5 suggests that this is not always a straightforward task: ‘The practices associated with assessment of student teachers to determine their readiness to be “qualified” are complex and varied’.
However, the purpose of any assessment must be to ensure that the learner is not just necessarily competent, but more importantly capable of completing a task while ensuring an appropriate balance with the academic requirements of the qualification. Moon6 supports this: ‘It is important to think about assessment criteria in the context of the assessment process. There are different reasons for assessing. The form that the criteria take may need to reflect this.’
The simplest means of gaining a measure of a learner’s understanding – for instance through a multiple-choice question paper – serve a purpose, albeit a limited one. Their advantages include the fact that they are easy to mark and can be based on clearly defined and easily understood learning outcomes. While such assessment mechanisms are unlikely to support the development of competence/capability in the learner significantly, they have their contribution to make.
Are academic requirements different to organisational ones? In some cases they must be – for instance, if an employee needs to learn and develop knowledge in order to solve a work-based problem, this can be assessed by whether the problem can be solved, and for the organisation this may be enough. Academically, the assessment may wish to measure the extent to which the knowledge has been learned or applied, and to encourage further learning to help achieve further growth. Organisationally, however, this may be seen as an irrelevance and waste of resources.
The method of assessment is critical. Interestingly, Boud7 suggests that ‘university type’ assessments do not prepare learners to learn outside of the university ‘bubble’, primarily because they rely on assessors to give feedback on work submitted.
This indicates a lack of reflection by the learner and a subsequent inability to reflect critically on learning activities, especially those that are not as structured or formal as those found in the classroom. In turn, this presents a problem because, although it is desirable for learners to be effectively self-managing in terms of identifying learning opportunities and subsequently undertaking and reflecting upon their value, it relies on the learner having these skills. In a situation where this is not the case, who is to do this? Should learners be expected to undertake more web-based learning to gain these skills and if so how can they be motivated to do so?
Assessment strategy
Developing strategies for the assessment of learning objectives focused on the likely activity of the learner in the workplace will benefit not only the competence standards of the individual, but also help academic institutions establish the benefits of learning with employers.
When considering the implic-ations of outcome-based learning in higher education, Ecclestone8 offers words of caution, stating that ‘potentially, outcome-based assessment can enhance student motivation and autonomy and have positive effects on curriculum development. However, if taken too far, it also endangers more critical, open-ended notions of student-centred learning.’
Therefore, the right balance must be struck through a multiple-strategy assessment process. For learners undertaking the foundation degree, the assessment processes involve a mixture of formal and informal, summative and formative approaches. A variety of methodologies have been built in, to include practical assessments, assignment questions, group and individual problem-solving activities, presentations, work-based projects and panel interviews
Howard Passey MIFireE MIFSM is the commercial director and Steve Skarratt the curriculum and qualifications manager of the Fire Protection Association
References
1. Allen, M.J., Assessing Academic Programmes in Higher Education, Anker Publishing, Boston, MA, USA, 2004.
2. Erwin, T. D., Assessing Student Learning and Development: A Guide to the Principles, Goals, and Methods of Determining College Outcomes, Jossey-Bass Inc., 1991.
3. Woolf, H., and Yorke, M., Guidance for the Assessment of Work-based Learning in Foundation Degrees, Foundation Degree Forward, 2010.
4. Foundation Degree Task Force, Report to Ministers – A Summary, Department for Education and Skills, 2004.
5. Keesing-Styles, L., The Relation-ship between Critical Pedagogy and Assessment in Teacher Education, Radical Pedagogy, The International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication, 2003.
6. Moon, J., Linking Levels, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria, UK 5 Bologna Seminar, University of Bournemouth, UK, 2003.
7. Boud, D., Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society in Continuing Education, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp151-167, 2000.
8. Ecclestone, K., Empowering or Ensnaring?: The Implications of Outcome-Based Assessment in Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, 53, pp29-48, 1999.